request for discussion concerning the future of AfD |
→Request for Discussion concerning the future of AfD: this suggestion is yet another thinly-veiled attempt by inclusionists to ensure nothing ever gets deleted |
||
Line 235: | Line 235: | ||
Thanks for your time : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for your time : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Wow, '''no'''. Your suggestion would guarantee that disinterested editors would never see deletion discussions. Frankly, this would be an excellent way for the Article Canvassing Squadron to make sure deletions never happen. And that's just stupid. The whole 'inclusionist' position is incredibly stupid anyway; more shit != better encyclopedia. Shit that might one day in some far away universe be useful != better encyclopedia. And deletionists don't even exist; it's the word inclusionists use to describe anyone who doesn't think that everything should be kept. In reality, most people realize that not everything belongs here. Or, rather, ''intelligent'' people realize that. Point being, your proposal is a guaranteed way to ensure that inclusionists will get their way. Always. Every time. Which makes a certain userbox on your page depressingly unsurprising. If the only people who see a deletion discussion are those who created or have edited the article... gee, I wonder which way the discussion will go? By 'gaming' above, what you mean is people getting articles properly deleted without the ARS making an end-run around community consensus, I suspect. |
|||
:This is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Kill it with fire. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 23:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)</small> |
Revision as of 23:29, 14 May 2011
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Request to complete AFD nom of ISO 13407
As I note at Talk:ISO 13407#AFD nomination, ISO 13407 was created in July 2008 and has been minimally improved since then. While a case could be made that as an ISO standard it starts out with a WP:GNG presumption of notability, a review of of its current content and my review of a sampling of articles from an internet search places notability in question. That, combined with WP:NOTMANUAL issues and the failed attempt a year ago to PROD the article–something I just documented via {{old prod full}}–prompts me to request that someone complete my AFD nomination. Thanks in advance. 68.165.77.118 (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 13407. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"Involved" status of nominator and/or AfD participants
Ok, here's a question I can't see on the wiki page (maybe I've missed it though).
Is an editor who happens to be an admin nominates an article for deletion counted as "involved" because they have an opinion on the article's fitness for inclusion in the 'pedia. Thus if the result of the AfD is 'delete', does anyone have concerns if the nominator then uses admin actions on the article thereafter (i.e. deletes it). My own take on it is 'yes' but I'd like to hear from others - if no-one has a problem with it, so be it. It has happened in an AfD recently but am proposing the question first. The case it relates to is:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia - nominated by Sandstein, closed as Delete by Wizardman, history restored to redirect by Jclemens and then history redeleted by Sandstein.
See User_talk:Jclemens#Phyrexia.
Anyway, this is a process thing - try not to think of it as a deletionist/inclusionist thing :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to comment on the "Phyrexia" issue but an AFD nominator, admin or not, is definitely "involved" because he wants the article deleted. (else he wouldn't have nominated it). The only exception would be a nomination resulting from a DRV result or one on behalf of an IP editor as in the thread right above this one where the nominator says he's neutral. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I guess that one can see it that way, but by extension this means that all administrators who !voted in the AfD to merge, keep or delete the article are also involved. We already recognize this by stipulating that such admins may not close the AfD, but I'm not sure that we've applied it to other admin actions such as future protections, deletions or undeletions. Do we want to? I tend to say yes, because it's normally possible to find a clearly uninvolved admin to do things that need doing. Sandstein 07:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I overlooked that initially. I guess the other thing is that a closing admin should consider the fine print as well, such as whether an article title is a valid search term (i.e. redirect) etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Generally, an admin is involved if they have nominated or !vote in a discussion (exception of procedural nomination on behalf on an IP or non-autoconfirmed editor). Another occasional exception is that where the nominator of an AfD states that he accepts that there is overwhelming consensus to keep, then any admin should be able to close, whether that admin has voted in favour of retention or deletion. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I overlooked that initially. I guess the other thing is that a closing admin should consider the fine print as well, such as whether an article title is a valid search term (i.e. redirect) etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I guess that one can see it that way, but by extension this means that all administrators who !voted in the AfD to merge, keep or delete the article are also involved. We already recognize this by stipulating that such admins may not close the AfD, but I'm not sure that we've applied it to other admin actions such as future protections, deletions or undeletions. Do we want to? I tend to say yes, because it's normally possible to find a clearly uninvolved admin to do things that need doing. Sandstein 07:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not at all sure it's a problem. If the AfD has been closed by someone uninvolved, deleting it is purely procedural. Normally maybe it's best for someone else to do it, but I'm not convinced that actually carrying out a decision made by someone else is a problem. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Once an independent admin restores the history, I suspect it is unwise for the deletion-nominator to redelete the article history. The history is not the article, hence maintaining it is not the same as keeping the article. Reverting the act of another admin is, for any admin, generally unwise. While not the same as unblocking an editor who was blocked under AE, it is still verging on that same territory - reversing the reasonable act of another admin. Collect (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with your statement that the history is not the article, Collect. It is part and parcel of the whole thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Once an independent admin restores the history, I suspect it is unwise for the deletion-nominator to redelete the article history. The history is not the article, hence maintaining it is not the same as keeping the article. Reverting the act of another admin is, for any admin, generally unwise. While not the same as unblocking an editor who was blocked under AE, it is still verging on that same territory - reversing the reasonable act of another admin. Collect (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The history should not have been undeleted by Jclemens to create the redirect, JC was heavily involved in the discussion and should not have used his tools to do that - the result of the AFD was delete. I myself have objected to the early closure of AFD discussions when consensus is towards delete on the grounds to create a redirect specifically because I wanted the history deleted to stop the easy recreation of similar low quality content. Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see that Sandstein was "involved" at the point he re-deleted the history -- if the consensus was clearly to delete, and closed and deleted by a completely-uninvolved admin, I can't see why re-deleting it would be a problem. Seems to me he would only be involved for the duration of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure I agree with that one, as one still has an opinion content-wise on the article before during and after the AfD. In any case, is it worth noting any of this on the flip side of this page? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned that JClemens, who was heavily involved in the AfD and argued against deletion, used his tools to undelete the article in order to make it a redirect against consensus. The logs show that after the AfD closed as 'delete', 7 hours later JClemens restored the article history and protected the redirect. At the very least there should have been a discussion about it first, and Jclemens should not have been using his tool to implement his preferred outcome. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll second that. Sandstein's actions may have technically run afoul of WP:INVOLVED, but I would look pretty kindly on the idea that his action was one that any completely uninvolved admin would have performed. Jclemens's action clearly and distinctly ran afoul of WP:INVOLVED: his actions directly contradicted the AFD result, and he argued against the AFD result during the AFD. In fact, he argued for "merge", which was rejected by consensus, and then used his admin tools to directly encourage his preferred result.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)x3 I don't think anything needs to be noted, Cas -- admins should know where WP:DRV is and how to userfy articles, so it shouldn't come up often enough to merit the instruction creep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned that JClemens, who was heavily involved in the AfD and argued against deletion, used his tools to undelete the article in order to make it a redirect against consensus. The logs show that after the AfD closed as 'delete', 7 hours later JClemens restored the article history and protected the redirect. At the very least there should have been a discussion about it first, and Jclemens should not have been using his tool to implement his preferred outcome. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Off2riorob, I can sympathise with BLPs that insisting on deletion of history is desirable, but with less "dangerous" material I am unconvinced. I guess in the realm of improvable and uncontroversial material which may be able to be referenced that having it accessible in the history is better than not. Anyone can revert an unredirected redirect anyway if there's been no improvement to the resurrected content, which doesn't sound too onerous to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, in relation to contentious history edits or content especially in relation to living people, my comment is really related to that type of issue, and if I had concerns regarding such I have and would raise them during the AFD and usually the position then gets additional support and so the request to specifically keep the history deleted is supported in the discussion so it would be clear that undelete-ing the history in that case without the DRV process would be controversial. The best course of action for JC would have been to simply ask Wizardman to reconsider his closure and see if he would consider re closing as redirect, and asking Sandstein if he minded. Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure I agree with that one, as one still has an opinion content-wise on the article before during and after the AfD. In any case, is it worth noting any of this on the flip side of this page? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Ponyo, yes, userfication would have been a more prudent route to take..Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
NB: Do we think cases like these strengthen the case for combining AfD MERGE and MOVE discussions into a unified "Articles for discussion" then? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no, but I like the idea anyway. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I like the idea too, but I'm not sure what the issue of involvement has got to do with it. Sandstein 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't like the idea: I think the volume is too high, that less experienced editors would be confused, and that we might occasionally end up with awkward outcomes ("I only wanted to correct the spelling on the name, but suddenly people are !voting to delete it..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- @Sandstein I was going off on a bit of a tangent. But sometimes AfD is seen as a keep/delete situation, and it might make editors and closing admins more mindful and explore fully other options. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with this point, merge or redirect is is all too often an afterthought to a keep delete focus. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I like the idea too, but I'm not sure what the issue of involvement has got to do with it. Sandstein 16:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just jumping in late here, but my opinion is that it is almost always better to ask for another admin to pull the trigger on any action where you have previously expressed an opinion. There's hundreds of active admins, so its not like any single one of us is "vital" towards any situation. As a personal matter of practice, I very rarely even block the same user twice, even if my first block was the first interaction I had with the user. I understand that this is way beyond the standard outlined at WP:INVOLVED, but as a pragmatic matter, the more different admins are involved, the less that any one user can say that a particular admin is misusing their tools. All situations benefit from having more people involved in them, either to correct a mistake, or to reinforce a correct decision. --Jayron32 15:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't consider an admin to be "involved" for procedural nominations. I'd also allow some latitude for uncontested closes (regardless of the outcome). (If the article is going to be kept/merged/deleted/redirected no matter who does it, then it doesn't really matter who does it.) However, IMO asking plainly uninvolved folks to do the work is wiser than doing it yourself. If nothing else, it stops any aggrieved party from pretending that a 10-to-1 AFD in favor of X would have had a different outcome, if only a truly impartial admin had closed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I also don't consider an admin to be involved if the nomination is purely procedural. However, I am a big wuss with my powers and bend over backward to avoid impropriety so I wouldn't delete an article where I had any substantial involvement with the deletion discussion. (Then again, I don't delete AfDs at all.) Even if I PROD an article I won't delete it when the PROD expires even though it's an uncontroversial deletion. As advice, I'd tell someone not to delete anything they nominated (however they did it), but if someone did do it, I think that you'd have to judge things on a case-by-case basis. -- Atama頭 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- It looks to me that Jclemens violated WP:INVOLVED more than Sandstein did in this incident, but WP:TROUT to both, of different sized though; A-size for Jclemens ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I feel there is a difference between upholding an existing desision and after expressing an opinion in an AFD to unilaterally use admin powers to undo that desision. I disagree with a comment made further up the page implying that undoing an admin action is wrong in itself. Admins do make mistakes and other admins do have to clean up those mistakes. What is wrong though is then to ping pong actions in a "wheelwar". When it comes to a community desision it will need to be undone by a community desision. Agathoclea (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so shall we discuss tweaking the policy page?
Right, there is nothing on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#General_advice spelling out that editors who are admins who have either nominated or voted on a page at AfD shouldn't use admin powers to fiddle with pages, and that best practice is to ask the closing or an uninvolved admin to userfy or initiate any other admin action associated with said page. Do we think adding something along these lines to the wikiquette bit or somewhere else is a good thing (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It seems correct to say that, if an administrator closes a discussion as delete then the history of the article should not be recreated by any other administrator whether they were involved or not without at a minimum a request to the closing administrator to recreate the history and re-close as merge/redirect or a via a WP:DRV. User-fication of community discussion deleted content should also be only done after careful consideration preferably by the closing admin or via a discussion showing community support for such action. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll endorse this when and if WP:ATD is enforced, such that nothing with a merge or redirect target is deleted in AfD unless the material itself is considered unfixably promotional, copyvio, or BLP/attack. Right now, we have far too many admins who count noses and proclaim "keep" or "delete", when in many cases neither of those Boolean outcomes is the correct outcome. Jclemens (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure any tweaking is needed to the actual policy, excepting that perhaps more explicit referal to existing policies and guidelines is added, like WP:INVOLVED, WP:USERFY, WP:WHEELWAR, etc. --Jayron32 13:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- You realize the Perverse incentives here, right? If an admin who's !voted in an AfD is somehow expected to not userify a document him or herself, then the various options are to strike the !vote before closing, comment only instead of !voting, or simply not comment on an AfD at all. Userification, improvement, and restoration is a core function of article improvement, and administrators who know the material, know our sourcing/content expectations, and have the tools to work with deleted material are the best people to go in and fix previously deleted material. If there are specific instances where that has been done badly, those should be addressed. Jclemens (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- An undelete to userfy can be marked as such and will only be in mainspace for seconds therefor at the end of the action no reversion of the deletion discussion has occured (Barring any other policies - obvious copy vio or simmilarly unsuitable material). I think no further instruction creep need be given, but common sense should apply. As an admin I might enforce a desision I personally do not agree with. I can theoretically see myself closing an AFD as delete when I !voted keep. Am I "involved"? Some Admins routinly comment on a large number of AFD's - should they forever be held "involved" or is it a case of looking at a large caseload that needs to be dealt with and then when coming accross the same article on another caseload making another desision? I am not as active as I have been or wish to be, but when I was relativly active I found a lot of tasks through articles mentioned at noticeboards and discussion, sometimes watching out for particular problems that I have noticed ie some sneaky vandalism. When do I start getting "involved"? Any mindless instruction creep will hamper more than it will benefit. Agathoclea (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I agree that userfication is usually uncontroversial and should be allowed (see below), filing at WP:Requests for undeletion is not terribly onerous. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think any revision or emphasis is needed; the cases I can think of seem to be common sense application of WP:INVOLVED. Userfication should not be restricted by AfD participation. Per WP:Userfication#Userfication of deleted content, userfication may be asked for at WP:Requests for undeletion, a venue meant for uncontroversial requests. Requiring an admin to file there is an unnecessary formality. If an admin is engaging in questionable conduct, such as hoarding articles, userfying unacceptable content, or sneaking pages back into article space, participation in related AfDs is a relatively minor issue. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Its not minor at all, don't do it, ask the closing admin. take it to MFD, if you do it on an article I have been involved in I will chase you around for your tools. Jclemens, I dispute your position completely - your claims that you know best or someone else in a similar position to you knows best is a large jump indeed, you have no authority at all to over ride community discussion and admin closure - follow the correct procedure or you will find dispute at all corners. I agree with users comments like Jayron, there is already clear policy to stop such involvement and userfy and wheelwar issues and if those guidelines had been followed correctly by user Jclemens then this discussion would not even be occurring. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why do you think that userfication should be considered controversial, something that requires WP:Deletion review? The userfied page is moved out of article space to user space. Flatscan (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there are no objections to userfication then if the deleting administrator agrees that is not controversial and I don't think a deletion review is required for usefication unless there was an objection. Considerations should be given to the reasons for deletion and the content not only in the current article but also in the history. Perhaps its a good idea if content that was deleted through community discussion is intended to be recreated in userspace a notice could be left automatically on the deletion nominators talkpage, by way of a good faith notification as the user that nominated the content for deletion they are perhaps going to be a possible objector to recreation of the content in userspace. We all know that in many many request for userfication situations, "please userfy that deleted article for me I want to improve it" - nothing ever happens to it, it sits there untouched. I prefer what some admins do when they refuse userfication but offer to email the article to the requester. These comments are regarding when the result of the discussion is delete - I also like it when the closing admin closing comments are more detailed, which might be beneficial all round, such as, delete - no objection to userfication. That way it is clear to all interested parties. Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- the horse might be out of the barn, but I oppose adding into policy language that suggests admins should be restricted from using the tools merely for having commented on or starting a deletion debate. Not because I feel admins should have carte blanche but because the right answer is to follow INVOLVED. We don't need a constellation of subject specific guidance around each anchor policy. In fact the path should be fewer rules. Where we feel the need to add another rule, consider whether or not the new rule could be replaced by a pointer to the base policy. Protonk (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Question regarding participant arguments
Right now, there are a few AfDs in my main area of focus that I've put up. I've provided, as far as I can tell, solid reasons for deletion based upon policy and gudelines, but participants voting "keep" are not addressing them and this is affecting the outcome. I've tried replying and asking if they'd be willing to elaborate, but no one is biting.
Is deletion review an option in this case, in order to get the debate relisted? Surely someone has options when none of their valid concerns are being addressed. There are few regular editors in this area and notability has not been established; if it had been, you'd think someone would be willing to explain why.
Here are the deletion discussions in question:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border jack
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinese (2nd nomination)
Thanks. Please forgive me for being mildly irritated. – anna 20:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- After reading those AfDs, I can see why you are frustrated. In my opinion, WP:Deletion review is very likely to endorse the Shinese outcome. You might get a no consensus or redirect for Border jack. It may be helpful to encourage AfD participation from WP:WikiProject Dogs/Dog breeds task force. Interested editors are usually better informed, but please be careful to avoid inappropriate canvassing of any future AfDs. Another thing that might help is a subject-specific notability guideline – a list of checkboxes is easy for a lay editor to understand. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- In response to encouraging AfD participation, I did so here. Out of the two AfDs brought up here, one member voted in Border Jack and none in Shinese. For the reasons you mentioned, my hands are basically tied when it comes to doing anything else. I'd love a subject-specific notability guideline to put these issues to rest, but I'm not sure how to go about proposing one; maybe I'll bring it up on the project talk page.
- Just to clarify, there's no recourse in this specific case? I admit, I'm still tempted to try DR because there's really nothing to lose, but I don't want to go through this every time I nominate an entirely unremarkable designer mix. Thanks for understanding, I appreciate it. – anna 08:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- SNG's generally don't trump the GNG--although that point is somewhat contested--so the actual utility of an SNG in this case is questionable. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jclemens is correct that if participants believe that the GNG allows the article, it is difficult to convince them that it should be excluded on the basis of your SNG. See how WP:Notability (wine topics) (shortcut WP:WINETOPIC) fared at WP:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards and the follow-up DRV. I think that an SNG might have value as a reference, even if it doesn't bring in delete recommendations. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tangent ahead: I think this might actually be more suited for a joint proposal between various animal projects (horses and cats come to mind immediately, but it also applies to other animals like cows and chickens). Species are notable, sure, and de facto all separate, established breeds are as well, but there's nothing addressing crossbreeds. Really, I think the GNG is suitable, but perhaps others disagree. There are some rare but established breeds that would probably fail, but those have not been nominated, and on my part that's because many, if not all, still have parent clubs or are recognized by their country's registry. – anna 04:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the root of the problem: Species are notable, sure, and de facto all separate, established breeds are as well, but there's nothing addressing crossbreeds. In my view certain of these "crossbreeds" have likely attained critical mass in terms of popular recognition as established types of dogs — Notable Neologisms, if you will. Borderjack seems to me to have more or less attained that mark. Honest people may differ in that assessment, which is what AfD is about — figuring out a consensus. By the way, the golden retriever "breed" was created as a cross-breed between yellow labs, an extinct breed of spaniel, and bloodhounds. That's how breeds are made... Carrite (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- How has the Border Jack reached said critical mass? I still haven't seen any sources other than the one with two sentences. Most of these designer breeds are in no way well-sourced -- Hans Adler summed it up well as a "ridiculous sub-stub" -- and while this one is a bit more notable than, say, the Labernese, it still lacks said sources. Breeds do not form overnight, and while I'm fully aware that they do not start off pure -- I'm a long-time dog hobbyist, please give me some credit ;) -- that's totally irrelevant. My issue with these articles has nothing to do with my opinion on the validity of designer breeds/mixes, but instead on whether they comply with the general notability guideline and verifiability policy. The Border Jack doesn't seem to, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. At this point, I'm flummoxed that none has been provided by those voting keep. – anna 16:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the root of the problem: Species are notable, sure, and de facto all separate, established breeds are as well, but there's nothing addressing crossbreeds. In my view certain of these "crossbreeds" have likely attained critical mass in terms of popular recognition as established types of dogs — Notable Neologisms, if you will. Borderjack seems to me to have more or less attained that mark. Honest people may differ in that assessment, which is what AfD is about — figuring out a consensus. By the way, the golden retriever "breed" was created as a cross-breed between yellow labs, an extinct breed of spaniel, and bloodhounds. That's how breeds are made... Carrite (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Tangent ahead: I think this might actually be more suited for a joint proposal between various animal projects (horses and cats come to mind immediately, but it also applies to other animals like cows and chickens). Species are notable, sure, and de facto all separate, established breeds are as well, but there's nothing addressing crossbreeds. Really, I think the GNG is suitable, but perhaps others disagree. There are some rare but established breeds that would probably fail, but those have not been nominated, and on my part that's because many, if not all, still have parent clubs or are recognized by their country's registry. – anna 04:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Jclemens is correct that if participants believe that the GNG allows the article, it is difficult to convince them that it should be excluded on the basis of your SNG. See how WP:Notability (wine topics) (shortcut WP:WINETOPIC) fared at WP:Articles for deletion/Valhalla Vineyards and the follow-up DRV. I think that an SNG might have value as a reference, even if it doesn't bring in delete recommendations. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- SNG's generally don't trump the GNG--although that point is somewhat contested--so the actual utility of an SNG in this case is questionable. Jclemens (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The AfDs listed at WT:WikiProject Dogs#Relevant AFD have a high success (non-keep) rate. I see that you've filed the DRV at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 2#Shinese. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have (and noted that it was advised against). Foolish? Almost certainly, and I did think it over, but at least there's a chance, however slim, of relisting. If consensus there is to endorse the closure, I'll accept that and leave the article alone. – anna 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The AfDs listed at WT:WikiProject Dogs#Relevant AFD have a high success (non-keep) rate. I see that you've filed the DRV at WP:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 2#Shinese. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Proposal: additional guidelines/suggestions on AFD to help mitigate exodus of Wikipedia Volunteers
Hi guys. I'd like to propose the addition to the article for people looking for guidelines on AFD. This place has become a bit hostile to new users and some of the deletion trigger-happiness have caused many sincere volunteers to become frustrated, disillusioned and leave. Hopefully this addition may mitigate it?
Please exercise caution, common sense and discretion before nominating an article for deletion. Wikipedia is losing a large number of volunteers due to frustration on excessive article deletion -- a big problem that needs to be addressed.[1][2][3][4][5][6] To allow an article to grow organically and be properly shaped and fleshed out by multiple users, wait a number of days before tagging or proposing an article for deletion. Contributors who start new articles may not have the time to immediately produce an article that is up to Wikipedia's standards upon creation. Also, be friendly to newbies. Many volunteers who start articles are new to Wikipedia and hostility to new users is seen as one of the problems that is causing an exodus of contributors.[3]
- ^ "Wikipedia in Trouble as Volunteers Leave". November 23, 2009.
- ^ Seraphina Brennan (Jan 6th 2009). "MUD history dissolving into the waters of time". Joystiq.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ a b Report: Wikipedia losing volunteers http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10403467-93.html
- ^ "Slashdot: Contributors Leaving Wikipedia In Record Numbers".
- ^ "Wikipedia 'loses' 49,000 editors". BBC News. 2009-11-25.
- ^ "Large number of Google search results on the phrase "wikipedia delete happy"".
What do you guys think?
A some things that happen it comes to editing and moderating here have been downright ridiculous and go counter to common sense. 10 of Wikipedia's wackiest arguments - In Depth: Behind every page there's a battle raging for control All the rules and guidelines are here for good reason, but sometimes, other editors get caught too much in enforcing narrow sets of rules too much to the detriment of the entire community and lose sight of the forest for the trees. -Object404 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is a terrible idea for inclusion here as it's irrelevant to the AfD process and redundant to WP:BITE, not to mention being synthesis. Feel free to make a user-space essay along the lines of Wikipedia:Why I Hate Speedy Deleters. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- You could address this concerns asking for new garbage articles to be moved to user-space instead of deleted. There they could live their few days test-drive before being ruthlessly (and rightfully) proded. --Damiens.rf 18:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- One question here is how is this text going to change behavior? I started a discussion here about an AfD that was started 19 minutes after an article was created. As you can see, no one added to this discussion page. Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- The sources given above are full of misinformation that just shows how unreliable most modern journalism is, and how little the reporters concerned have bothered to check facts. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- One question here is how is this text going to change behavior? I started a discussion here about an AfD that was started 19 minutes after an article was created. As you can see, no one added to this discussion page. Unscintillating (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- As someone who has had his first unhappy deletion experience after about 5 years of intermittent participation and hundreds of edits, I agree that something is wrong with the deletion process. In my instance, the issue is one of self regulation. Deleters should have some expertise in the topic of the article; so I heartily endorse the addition proposed. Part of the problem is that I hate bureaucracy and have no understanding of the deletion process and probably never will. But the chutspah to delete someone else's contribution suggests that the deleter is unlikely to impose any self restraint even with this admonition. Probably they will never read it. Personally I have never deleted stuff except to change grammar and intended meaning by adding phrases. In my fumbling to create a discussion of the deleted topic I was even warned that I might be blocked. So it goes. Imersion (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Have you though that maybe there's something wrong not (only?) with the with the deletion process, but with the article creation process? Or actually, with the lack of a process for that. --Damiens.rf 20:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with the deletion process is that there are three different ones. This is confusing. The one where you can tag an article for deletion, but the page creator can simply remove the tag to stop the process seems particularly useless. It's also hard to determine if an article should be put up for speedy deletion or not. It should be possible to come up with just **one** deletion process. but I'm not sure where the correct place to discuss that is. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Three thoughts:
- I think that adding this here is unnecessary and useless: it will not change people's behavior. If you'd like, it could join the list of essays on this subject.
- I think that AFD isn't driving away nearly as many editors as CSD and the tag-bombing of brand-new articles.
- I think that some of those "editors" (read: spammers) actually need to be driven away.
- I think folks have been making this complaint since at least 2005, i.e., even back when the number of editors was still rapidly growing. As a result, I'm having a hard time believing that the sky is falling here. Mere proliferation, as measured in the rate of increase on the number of articles, is not the actual goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- I do think people are driven away, but not by deletionists, but by bullies. So after have read these reports I think they can be ignored. The problem is not that too many articles get deleted. I have myself had one article I created marked for deletion for entirely the wrong reasons, and that article didn't get deleted and he backed down after I implemented some suggested improvements. The articles that get deleted really should be deleted in the vast majority of cases. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an opinion piece and doesn't belong on the AfD process page. Placing this banner on the page because "Wikipedia is losing a large number of volunteers" doesn't solve the problem, in fact, it's more likely to exacerbate it, since it shows how desperate we are that we risk encyclopedic material to bring in new people. This should belong on an essay about deletion in general, not just AfD. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Overdue AfD needs to be closed
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits is overdue for closure; it was opened on April 21, and the debate has petered out. The reason I'm posting this here is because the AfD slipped out of WP:AFD/O when it was (inappropriately) NAC-closed, an action which was subsequently reversed. Anyway, if an admin who hasn't participated would take a look, I would appreciate it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- Since I posted this, the debate resumed and Wizardman relisted the AfD. So, while it is still ripe for closure, this is no longer a special case; it will be listed on WP:AFD/O in a few days. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Please read and comment at Talk:Donald_Trump#Close_to_beyond_repair. If it isn't repaired, or if I don't get any response otherwise, I will list this article next week at AfD. 01:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
- Good luck with that. I predict SNOW keep without even looking at the article first. I'd honestly recommend ongoing repair attempts, involving WP:BLPN as necessary. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TNT needs to be packed into that article --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- We do have the ability to take some rather drastic action if necessary; I doubt that deletion is needed at this juncture. T. Canens (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- WP:TNT needs to be packed into that article --Guerillero | My Talk 02:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
step III needed
Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Olympic class starship needs to be converted to Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Olympic class starship, and added to the day list. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Olympic class starship
An editor removed the AfD banner from the article Olympic class starship, which is under active discussion. Do I jusr revert it? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 08:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, you ignore it per the discussion here. ArcAngel (talk) ) 08:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The instructions at PROD are that if it is disputed, it is sent to AfD to establish consensus. A one day discussion does not establish consensus, merely that it is disputed whether it should be deleted or not. I can transfer the entire discussion over from the PROD discussion to the AfD discussion. As I closed the PROD discussion, because the prod was disputed, and opened the AfD, since it was disputed, that seems to be the procedure for these things. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The instructions should say that if you still feel the article should be deleted after the Prod is removed then the only option is to bring it to AFD. If the discussion has swayed you in feeling that that the article will survive an AFD there is no requirement to take it to AFD. From my viewpoint looking at the discussion and the article, the article would survive an AFD and not be deleted. It is well sourced to reliable sources. GB fan (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I was never swayed by the arguments presented by the PROD dissenters, since the references are for the most part primary sources. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus was reached before it ever reached AFD. I made the mistake of opening an AFD on it without doing some homework first. Once I saw that section, I then closed the AFD. Now, if you'd like to open another AFD on it, what would be your reason? ArcAngel (talk) ) 10:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I missed the discussion above this one when I commented earlier. I don't know if that was a valid close, an AFD is supposed to be about expanding the number of editors looking at the article. In a discussion on the talk page the discussion is between people who have the article watchlisted for the most part and those are people who think the article should be kept so the discussion would be a consensus to keep the article. The AFD when you closed it had a delete recommendation already from an established editor. I am going to undo your close to let the discussion run until consensus is reached on that discussion. GB fan (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The instructions should say that if you still feel the article should be deleted after the Prod is removed then the only option is to bring it to AFD. If the discussion has swayed you in feeling that that the article will survive an AFD there is no requirement to take it to AFD. From my viewpoint looking at the discussion and the article, the article would survive an AFD and not be deleted. It is well sourced to reliable sources. GB fan (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- The instructions at PROD are that if it is disputed, it is sent to AfD to establish consensus. A one day discussion does not establish consensus, merely that it is disputed whether it should be deleted or not. I can transfer the entire discussion over from the PROD discussion to the AfD discussion. As I closed the PROD discussion, because the prod was disputed, and opened the AfD, since it was disputed, that seems to be the procedure for these things. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Request for Discussion concerning the future of AfD
AFD is different than all other X for discussion/deletion processes for one simple fact. This encyclopedia could still exist as an encyclopedia (though arguably not as user friendly) if all misc. project pages, categories, redirects, stubs, templates, and even images were all removed from Wikipedia.
The articles are simply the heart of the encyclopedia project.
And related to that, all the other items noted above, would seem to be more metaprocess from the perspective of the average user/editor. While editing an article in real time, has more of a "feel" to editing the encyclopedia.
So I would like to propose that AfD be deprecated in a particular way.
Individual AfD discussions should be on the talk pages of the article in question. the same way requested moves, and other such discussions are.
And just like seeming current practice with those, may be split to a sub page of the page in question if the discussion grows too large to be manageable on the talk page.
Why:
Because regardless of those of use who may be fluent in wiki-ese, and are decent at navigating project space, not every editor is. And I honestly don't think we should require them to be for discussing direct article content. (As opposed to things like redirects and categories which I would agree are better discussed at a central page.)
And as much as so many editors have sincerely tried many creative ways to try to make AfD open, transparent, and accessible, it just isn't.
It's a battleground of many wiki-philosphies (more than just the generic call of inclusionist or deletionist).
And it's a system and structure that is constantly gamed. (And I apologise in advance, but for now at least, I would prefer to not offer specific examples for this, for BEANS if no other reason.)
One of the most basic examples of this is: tag a page for deletion, using a poor or non existant edit summary; make one or more innocuous edits immediately after; then the fact that a particular page may be up for discusssion/deletion won't appear on watchlists (yes there are ways to modify the watchlist, but still...)
And then a discussion NOT on a talk page of the page in question, determines the fate of the page.
Compare to if it was on the article's talk page. The comments to the AfD should be more likely to light up someone's watchlist.
And more, it shows on the talk page, for those who might not even understand a watchlist. If they are editors, they at least know how to click on a particular page and look to the talk page of the page. Especially if there is a template on the main page of the page stating that it is under discussion for deletion.
As for implementation, it should be fairly innocuous. altering various bots to target an article's talk page, instead of a subpage of WP:AFD.
We could still have the letter-based categorisational system, and all the other tools which have been devised for this.
And finally, one more why - AfD (fairly or not) gives the impression that the discussion about the page is being done by the wikipedia elite (whoever they may be).
I would strongly argue that sincere editors are far more likely to join in on a deletion discussion which is on an article's talk page, than if it's in project space.
(This is long enough so I don't want to go too deep into it, but this is also somewhat related to the seeming steep learning curve to Wikipedia. Not to mention some rather common misconceptions concerning project space.)
And if making this change brings even a single additional voice to the discussion, then it is worth it.
The negatives? Well, as anything, there are those who look at any long standing system and not want to change, simply due to not liking change.
And of course, some bots/scripts (and maybe some templates) will have to be slightly modified.
I think the positives (of which I have only numerated a few) far outweigh the negatives.
That said, I am a firm believer in the Wiki-way method of resolution, so please, discussion would be greatly welcome.
Thanks for your time : ) - jc37 23:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, no. Your suggestion would guarantee that disinterested editors would never see deletion discussions. Frankly, this would be an excellent way for the Article Canvassing Squadron to make sure deletions never happen. And that's just stupid. The whole 'inclusionist' position is incredibly stupid anyway; more shit != better encyclopedia. Shit that might one day in some far away universe be useful != better encyclopedia. And deletionists don't even exist; it's the word inclusionists use to describe anyone who doesn't think that everything should be kept. In reality, most people realize that not everything belongs here. Or, rather, intelligent people realize that. Point being, your proposal is a guaranteed way to ensure that inclusionists will get their way. Always. Every time. Which makes a certain userbox on your page depressingly unsurprising. If the only people who see a deletion discussion are those who created or have edited the article... gee, I wonder which way the discussion will go? By 'gaming' above, what you mean is people getting articles properly deleted without the ARS making an end-run around community consensus, I suspect.
- This is one of the worst ideas I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Kill it with fire. → ROUX ₪ 23:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)